Shoot to kill: A policy that was DOA?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

The only way I could ever condone a "shoot to kill" policy is in a situation where people are in immediate danger.

Still a tough call. While this is most certainly a tragic event, with a huge CYA, and officials that should be held liable (financially if not criminally), it is a tough call as to who presents a danger.

Let's say some kid had a backpack on, and in it is a baggie of marijuana. Dog catches a whiff of it, starts barking, kid runs. Does the cop shoot him, thjinking it is perhaps a backpack bomb? At that point in time, is he a danger, perceived if not real?

Granted, my example is probably not the best one as I doubt if there is crossover between drug dogs and bomb dogs, but my point is valid.

I wouldn't want to be the one trying to determine if someone was presented imminent danger. In the days of suicide bombings, it is possible that any heavily dressed person or or someone with a bag is a risk. Searching everyone is hardly a solution - impractical, and the bomber could simply detonate at the checkpoint.

Tough call on a tough situation. Someone having a gun and shooting it in a subway isn't hard to figure out. The current situation is.

[Moonliner]

Clearly the brits F'ed up in this case. Clearly they then tried to cover it up.

Somwhere Mr. Bin Laden is sitting back in his easy chair having a good belly laugh.